4 ms·
The problem I have with fact checkers, rather than "context expanders" is that their end product is a simple answer for things that may not be trivial. There ma
by nomel 2y ago
The problem I have with fact checkers, rather than "context expanders" is that their end product is a simple answer for things that may not be trivial. There may not be a clear binary answer.
> whether crime is up or down
Was the reporting consistent between the two timeframes (apathy, directions from police station, etc)? Was the reporting system fully operational both timeframes being compared? Is the reported vs actual crime ratio the same between the two timeframes?
> how many people live in poverty
> what the rate of inflation is
Is the metric calculated the same way between the two timeframes? If not, what's the justification for the new metrics? Is the answer the same if the old and new metric is used with the same data?
- wat10000 2y agoIt’s not realistic, or IMO necessary, to put more into it than the original claim does, besides bringing actual sources to the table. If the original claim is that crime is really up but it doesn’t show in the official figures because of subtle factors X Y and Z, then sure, a fact check saying this is wrong needs to dive in and explain why those factors don’t account for it. But if it’s just “crime is up 87% since Biden took office” then “actually, crime is down N% in that period, see link from relevant stats agency here” is fine. The latter is about a million times more common.